Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On 1/12/06, Daniel Ruoso <daniel@ruoso.com> wrote:
> Em Qui, 2006-01-12 às 18:08 -0200, Gustavo Franco escreveu:
> > - Scott's url with patches isn't part of the "give something back"
> > approach that we want. We need to be well informed about patches, but
> > we don't know exactly how;
>
> Don't we?
>
> Debian is Ubuntu's upstream, right?
In a way, yes.
> When you modify something in the upstream code, you normally send it to
> upstream, right?
The normal "upstream" can't be applied here. There are some scenarios
where Ubuntu can patch Debian packages and it isn't a simple "debian
(upstream) - ubuntu (dd)" relationship, see:
non-native: debian/ patches; debian/patches or whatever - normally
related to upstream (do they need to report it to us or the real
upstream? both?);
native: I think everything not in debian/ could be reported back, but
each debian/ changeset should be verified first.
> Do you send it as a link to a file with a patch only? Or do you send a
> comment explaining the problem, the proposed solution and why that
> decision was made?
That's why i mentioned revision control system (on Ubuntu side not us)
in the other thread, but Manoj missed the point replying and i don't
think it's going to happen anyway.
There are cases when debian/changelog is enough (native as described
above) but others aren't.
> That's it, just it, nothing more... That's what distinguishes
> cooperating from forking...
Yes, but you're yet to fill the "how" gap since i believe you agreed
that a new bug in our BTS related with every Ubuntu changeset wouldn't
be a good idea, right? Don't came with "they need to review and
judge", it's up to us decide if we will include patches or not. They
won't do it every time, but it's clear that some of Canonical
employees are doing it as Matt cited. If it's not happening to your
packages, i recommend you ask who modified them to file bug reports.
It will be your policy, you're free to do that.
--
Gustavo Franco
Reply to: